Rink Springer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:21:24PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>> ad0 is a character device. Why ad0 isn't a block device?
>
> FreeBSD 5 and up no longer make a distinction between character/block
> device
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:21:24PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> ad0 is a character device. Why ad0 isn't a block device?
FreeBSD 5 and up no longer make a distinction between character/block
devices. More information on this subject can be found in "The Design
and Implemen
- 1 root operator0, 93 Dec 14 11:47 ad0s1c
ad0 is a character device. Why ad0 isn't a block device?
--
Uladzislau Rezki
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, s
On 6/24/06, Frank Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let's assume your Block Device is an ATA Hard Disk and you're using
FreeBSD
6.0 like me.
Take a look at and you'll see a large fully-commented
structure,
"struct ata_params", which is used to return the inf
Let's assume your Block Device is an ATA Hard Disk and you're using FreeBSD
6.0 like me.
Take a look at and you'll see a large fully-commented structure,
"struct ata_params", which is used to return the information from the ATA
"IDENTIFY DEVICE" command
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Jun 22), Mike Meyer said:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
So I guess my question is: is there a POSIX compatible function that
will allow me to check the size of a given block device?
I'd be surprised - POSI
In the last episode (Jun 22), Mike Meyer said:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > So I guess my question is: is there a POSIX compatible function that
> > will allow me to check the size of a given block device?
>
> I'd be surpr
patible function that
> > will allow me to check the size of a given block device?
>
> I'd be surprised - POSIX doesn't seem to deal with block devices at all.
>
> Checking the sources to df, it uses statfs to get the
> information. Linux appears to have it as well, so it m
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> So I guess my question is: is there a POSIX compatible function that
> will allow me to check the size of a given block device?
I'd be surprised - POSIX doesn't seem to deal with block devices at all.
Checkin
Hello,
First off, is this the appropriate list for coding questions? I read
questions@, but I do not often see discussions about code there, so I
thought I might ask here instead. If not, please correct me.
I need to know the size of a block device in some code that I'm writing.
I checke
Sean Hamilton wrote this message on Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 15:40 -0700:
> Does FreeBSD support a device that will allow for the passing of all reads
> and writes on it to a userland application? I wish to handle swapping
> myself, preferably without any kernel hacking.
Take a look at geom_gate fro
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003, Sean Hamilton wrote:
> Does FreeBSD support a device that will allow for the passing of all reads
> and writes on it to a userland application? I wish to handle swapping
> myself, preferably without any kernel hacking.
>
> What would happen if the kernel decided to swap o
Does FreeBSD support a device that will allow for the passing of all reads
and writes on it to a userland application? I wish to handle swapping
myself, preferably without any kernel hacking.
What would happen if the kernel decided to swap out such a process?
_
I'm writing a remote block device on FreeBSD 4.6.2
As far as the network part is rather difficult, I don't want to include it
in the kernel module. So I started coding my module with this overall
structure in mind :
- a program reads the block device.
- the module receives read and
[cc: reduced]
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 06:06:20PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> >
> > What you really want is SCSI over IP. Anything else is just a hack and
> > not to be trusted. I think that NFS is less of a hack than NBD though.
>
> IMO NB
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> > IMO NBD is less of a hack than you think it is. It is one of the
> > necessary components for creating a single system image from a cluster
> > of commodity hardware and this is something Linux dev
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> I haven't been following this thread too closely, but I was hoping you could
> clarify something for me. For what does GEOM mean/stand?
GEOM is not an acronym, even though the last three letters are
uppercase, as they would be with an ac
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> What you really want is SCSI over IP. Anything else is just a hack and
> not to be trusted.
And iSCSI isn't?
> I think that NFS is less of a hack than NBD though.
> Of course if Linux still suffers from poor NFS performance that might
> explain why
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wri
tes:
>I haven't been following this thread too closely, but I was hoping you could
>clarify something for me. For what does GEOM mean/stand?
GEOM is basically our disk-I/O subsystem at this point.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zi
I haven't been following this thread too closely, but I was hoping you could
clarify something for me. For what does GEOM mean/stand?
Thanks for the clarification,
Mike
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Gilbert
> writes:
> >> "phk" == phk <[EMAIL PROTECTE
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Gilbert writes:
>> "phk" == phk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>phk> NBD wouldn't be hard to implement on FreeBSD, the easiest way
>phk> would be to write two GEOM modules to do it: a client and a
>phk> server.
>
>phk> No, I don't have time to do that right
> "phk" == phk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
phk> NBD wouldn't be hard to implement on FreeBSD, the easiest way
phk> would be to write two GEOM modules to do it: a client and a
phk> server.
phk> No, I don't have time to do that right now, but I will happily
phk> guide anybody who wants to try.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:44:59PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
>
> If we were talking about clustering 32 bit machines with less than 128mb
> of memory each that would be true.
>
> I suppose you could use some sort of PAE to allow every cluster member's
> address space to be mapped but a 64 bit
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:13:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> NBD wouldn't be hard to implement on FreeBSD, the easiest way would
> be to write two GEOM modules to do it: a client and a server.
>
> No, I don't have time to do that right now, but I will happily
> guide anybody who wants
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 06:06:20PM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
>
> What you really want is SCSI over IP. Anything else is just a hack and
> not to be trusted. I think that NFS is less of a hack than NBD though.
IMO NBD is less of a hack than you think it is. It is one of the
necessary compon
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> And anyone that's doing clustering and things that it can't be done on a
> 32 bit machine, and not looking at the VAX, which runs VMS, deserves
> what they get.
>
> ...Sorry, had to be said... 8-).
If we were talking about clustering 32 bit machines with
"Matthew N. Dodd" wrote:
> They should really look at Sprite. (And anyone thats doing clustering and
> not looking at VMS deserves what they get.)
>
> On a real cluster running a single image all all the drives would just
> show up. There wouldn't be any hacking going on. Stuff like this kind o
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
> geom meets netgraph.. :-)
>
> You could possibly do something with the ng_device node that exports a
> device into teh dev namesapce from netgraph. (the version in the tree is
> curently broken, the author is rewrituing it..) Adding a geom top-end
> to
geom meets netgraph.. :-)
You could possibly do something with the ng_device node
that exports a device into teh dev namesapce from netgraph.
(the version in the tree is curently broken, the author is rewrituing
it..) Adding a geom top-end to it might give you
something quite cute..
On Thu, 30
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> IMO NBD is less of a hack than you think it is. It is one of the
> necessary components for creating a single system image from a cluster
> of commodity hardware and this is something Linux developers are working
> earnestly on. They're targeting
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matthew N. Dodd" writes:
> >On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
> >So involving NFS isn't really going to make that much of a difference.
>
> Yes, it sure would.
nfs1:/foo/foo1 -> md1
nfs2:/foo/foo2 -> md2
ccd0 6
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matthew N. Dodd" writes:
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
>> it doesn't work that way. the result of NBD is a /dev/nbd0 not a
>> filesystem. Block 0 of /dev/nbd0 is block 0 of /dev/hda1 (say). nbd
>> runs as a server on the node with the disk and as a c
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
> it doesn't work that way. the result of NBD is a /dev/nbd0 not a
> filesystem. Block 0 of /dev/nbd0 is block 0 of /dev/hda1 (say). nbd
> runs as a server on the node with the disk and as a client on the node
> using the disk. Yes, you still stripe on
> "Matthew" == Matthew N Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
>> As I understand, NBD is just a little driver that lets you mount
>> foo:/dev/ad0s1g over the network and proxies the block transactions
>> across.
Matthew> Right, you still have to
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
> As I understand, NBD is just a little driver that lets you mount
> foo:/dev/ad0s1g over the network and proxies the block transactions
> across.
Right, you still have to stripe/mirror on the client side though. I don't
think it will be all that bad.
An
> "Matthew" == Matthew N Dodd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> So use vinum, CCD or add the files as swap and make a
Matthew> swap-backed filesystem.
Matthew> No reason to invent a totally new low level filesystem here.
Actually, I can see that working ... but it's going to be a whole lo
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
> but that would be no different than using the nfs directly. mdconfig
> won't aggregate several chunks of files ... and last I checked md wasn't
> entirely happy with nfs (some form of chicken-and-egg problem)
So use vinum, CCD or add the files as swap a
G-ish of a
>> disk on each node to one machine that generates a gigantic
>> filesystem. This is done with linux's network-block-device (NBD).
>> I'd like to know if someone has generated a similar FreeBSD
>> facility.
Matthew> You could use NFS and 'mdc
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
> While I'm 100% aware of the pitfalls of such a setup, I find myself
> implementing linux in a cluster because it can export 5G-ish of a disk
> on each node to one machine that generates a gigantic filesystem. This
> is done with linu
While I'm 100% aware of the pitfalls of such a setup, I find myself
implementing linux in a cluster because it can export 5G-ish of a disk
on each node to one machine that generates a gigantic filesystem.
This is done with linux's network-block-device (NBD). I'd like to
know
Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we couldn't find any reason th have block devices except in teh case for
> exporting the nodes via NFS.
>
> The buffer caching is done at teh filesystem level, and raw-io is faster
> with the raw device, so it was complicating the code without giving
> I saw an old message in 1999 freebsd-hackers archive that said that block
> devices were being replaced from freebsd. I tried to follow the trail of
> the message but could not find anything more...Also I could not find
> any bdevsw[] in the code. I shall be thankful if anyone could give any
we couldn't find any reason th have block devices except in teh case for
exporting the nodes via NFS.
The buffer caching is done at teh filesystem level, and raw-io is faster
with the raw device, so it was complicating the code without giving us any
real advantage.. If you need a cached device
I saw an old message in 1999 freebsd-hackers archive that said that block
devices were being replaced from freebsd. I tried to follow the trail of
the message but could not find anything more...Also I could not find
any bdevsw[] in the code. I shall be thankful if anyone could give any
further
44 matches
Mail list logo
